Director Pa Ranjith
By the time the first song in Kaala comes on screen, Pa Ranjith skillfully establishes the conflict in the film. While on surface the conflict is about the right to property, as one digs deeper, Ranjith taking a leaf from Godfather, sets up a world where the aging don, Kaala, guards Dharavi against upper-class politicians with his righthand man-cum-elder son, while his younger son attacks the same problem through a liberal framework with his more efficient girlfriend. To further drive the point home for the Tamil audience, Ranjith names the relatively subdued younger son, the name of a Soviet Revolutionist and his elder son a Tamil name. Ranjith thus establishes early on that the film is going to talk not just about land politics with race and colour as extensions, but also an inner conflict as to how to approach the common problem.
As the film progresses with class conflicts on one end and a subtle and effervescent love triangle at the other end, it’s the inner conflict at the centre between Kaala and his son that I found most interesting. While Ranjith the writer sets up the tension through the parallel approach to solve the land problem, Ranjith the director aids my interest by framing his left-leaning son predominantly to Kaala’s left while his elder son occupies the right-hand side. The film peaks, staying true to the Godfather when an untoward incident pushes the younger son to the right.
After the peak, either for commercial reasons or lack of creativity, Ranjith shifts to Rajini one-man mass-masala show. While he coasts along exhibiting the AR Murgadoss brand of simplistic social justice, I found it straying way out of the conflict in a grossly ineffective manner. The Rajini show, which could have covered for the failed detour, too doesn't work mainly because of the inconsistency. Kaala is on a losing streak even before the film starts (his father is killed by the antagonist) and through the course of the film, the list only gets bigger. He does give a lot of threat to the opponent and yet doesn't actually do much, barring few powerful whimsical decisions. What more, many characters, umpteen times, question his achievements. Coming backing to the conflict, as the film ends symbolically where it started, the director’s voice seems to be convinced that he has provided a solution to the problem. Yet, as an audience, I only see the antagonist winning the war while losing the battle. Yes, philosophically smearing the opponent in unison is a fitting finale, but it doesn't ring as effective as Madras. The main reason is, in Madras, the people make a statement that the opponents don't matter to them anymore, while here they only cross half the well from being hero dependent for protests to taking the matter to their hand, literally. Doesn't Ranjith realise until the people legitimise the opponents, they will always be there? In hindsight, there is nothing wrong with a bittersweet ending. We all do live a day at a time. The problem here seems to be that the director doesn’t realise that it’s a bittersweet ending ala Ramana style. Thus, the question in my mind is what is the motive of the film? Is it to say we don't need a superstar to save us? Or that we unnecessarily symbolise these inconsistent leaders and end up where we started? I may never know. What I do want to comment is, having set up an inconsistent leader and ended with a people movement, Ranjith could have fleshed out the hero's arc better. Maybe Ranjith, hurt by the criticism that Kabali didn’t have a strong antagonist, ended up creating an antagonist who is destined to win, or rather born to rule as posted throughout Mumbai in the film.
What is emphatically clear through is this is an out and out Ranjith film where Rajini mouths and reacts through a political framework that is in polar contrast to the fiery airport speech he recently made in real life. I am perplexed as to whether one should appreciate Rajini for separating his political stance and cinematic brand or sympathize with him for his naivety to choose a film that is going to be shown to him at every step of his political career in answer to his future stances. I hope it's not the third option to diversify the portfolio.
Comments